the netherlands at one time was interested in battlecruisers, they could build them for other navies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_1047_battlecruiser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_1047_battlecruiser
Pocket battleships for minor navies
- Thread starter AdA
- Start date
The PB Race
Here's a tentative draft for a TL:
1927/29 - Argentina buys 25 Maio and Alm. Brown. (7000t - 6x7.5'')
1929/32 - Brasil buys São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro (Italian built, 15000t, 6x12'')
1931/34 - Chile buys O'Higgins and Chacabuco to replace old protected cruisers (French built, 16000t, 6x13'')
1934 - Washington treaty revised to allow for major navies to build "trade protection Cruisers" efectivelly BC, this ships are allowed to:
20000t standard, guns up to 13.5''.
US and UK - up to 100 000
Japan Italy and France - up to 60000t
The RN, USN and IJN ships would later prove to be excelent Carrier escorts. Germany was allowed to build 60000t in a separate treaty. it used them for three improved Deutschlands, and sold the plans for two for the Dutch Navy.
This program seriously delayed Bismarck and Tirpitz construction, and they were canceled in WW2
Here's a tentative draft for a TL:
1927/29 - Argentina buys 25 Maio and Alm. Brown. (7000t - 6x7.5'')
1929/32 - Brasil buys São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro (Italian built, 15000t, 6x12'')
1931/34 - Chile buys O'Higgins and Chacabuco to replace old protected cruisers (French built, 16000t, 6x13'')
1934 - Washington treaty revised to allow for major navies to build "trade protection Cruisers" efectivelly BC, this ships are allowed to:
20000t standard, guns up to 13.5''.
US and UK - up to 100 000
Japan Italy and France - up to 60000t
The RN, USN and IJN ships would later prove to be excelent Carrier escorts. Germany was allowed to build 60000t in a separate treaty. it used them for three improved Deutschlands, and sold the plans for two for the Dutch Navy.
This program seriously delayed Bismarck and Tirpitz construction, and they were canceled in WW2
Given the limitations on Capital Ships and Aircraft Carriers, this means that the only people who are permitted under treaty terms to supply ships above 10,000 tons displacement to any other country are Germany, and that is supposing that she is ignoring Versailles limits on naval construction - which specified 10,000 tons as the limit for any ship built by Germany.
Meanwhile, the Germans certainly between the Anglo-German Naval Agreement and the outbreak of war were unable to fully reach their permitted quota under that Agreement - as such their capacity to build ships for other powers in the late 1930's is doubtful, and their capacity to do so prior to the AGNA is unlikely to be sufficient.
If you want to have PBs with minor navies, you're going to have to either remove or heavily alter the naval limitation treaties, or try getting minor powers to build them for themselves.
One of the reasons the treaties specify that they include not just ships operated by the signatories but also those built by them, after all, is that otherwise a power could build a powerful fleet, 'sell' much of it to a friendly foreign power, and then 'buy' it back at the outbreak of war.
Treaty
The treaty restrained states. What about an international (private) consortiun that would build an incomplete ship, to be finished in the buying country? Provided no stronger objections were raised, Italy could probably claim that it had merely allowed a Brasilian Company with offices in Italy to use some of its facilities.
Apart from such a "Denny Crane logic" possibility, the ships would have to built in germany or in the countries that wanted them, with German (or Italian, or French...) assistence.
The treaty restrained states. What about an international (private) consortiun that would build an incomplete ship, to be finished in the buying country? Provided no stronger objections were raised, Italy could probably claim that it had merely allowed a Brasilian Company with offices in Italy to use some of its facilities.
Apart from such a "Denny Crane logic" possibility, the ships would have to built in germany or in the countries that wanted them, with German (or Italian, or French...) assistence.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Admiral Graf Spee
While Spee at sea was on a spree it would be wrong to say spree rather than Spee, see.
While Spee at sea was on a spree it would be wrong to say spree rather than Spee, see.
David S Poepoe
Banned
At the time there weren't the 'international consortiums' around that you are talking about. There are a finite amount of shipyards worldwide, who's countries are still bound by the WNT, and there are even fewer armament manufacturers, let alone those of armour plate, also abound by the WNT. After the Great War there simply aren't the likes of Armstrong-Elswick, for example, that built capital warships for other countries.
The only country that probably could have done it was Soviet Russia. However, the shipbuilding industry was in near ruins by the end of the revolution.
OK. I agree that it's easier to POD a few words into a treaty than change naval industry. A POD could be a provision in the treaty that allows warships to be built for non signatary navies, provided they do not exceed a limit of 30000t for capital ships, or comply with treaty rules for other vessels. This clause would be the result of pressure from the yard worker's unions, afraid of loosing export work. This would encourage brasil to order two PB rather than a single 30000t BB, and Chile to follow suit. Within this limits the minor navies ships would not be seen as a threat, until they started ordering PB...
Do note that the "international consortiuns" I was talking about were simply artificial creatures made up to cover a treaty breach. Wether people would belive in them is another matter, ence the new POD sugestion...
David S Poepoe
Banned
I would think such a provision would be considered against the spirit of the treaty. The general drive is to prevent naval arms races, also who's to say that a Great Power may not use a Lesser Power as a proxy to order ships that may be handed back to the Great Power in time of war.
So even with your numbers, the cost of a PB is almost double that of a standard cruiser. That is very substantial. So for the same money, you could buy a heavy cruiser and 1 light cruiser, or almost have enough to buy two heavy cruisers.
US Northamptons built under the Treaty were only $12 million. Each had 9 eight inch guns. Compare to the Exter which only had 6 eight inch guns when it fought Graf Spee (see, David?
). Let's say the Argentineans get two Northamptons for Brazil's 1 PB. That is reasonable. That's 18 eight inch guns against the PB's 6 11 inch guns. The less expensive Pensacolas had 10 eight guns, so that would bring 20 to bear. Not to mention more tactical options, more torpedoes, etc. if they do get into a fight.I am not seeing any decisive benefit for the PB. It could go either way. On the other hand, having that extra ship gives the opposing navy more flexibility and gives them some insurance that they'll have at least one ship left over if the navy fights a PB.
Since any war between Argentina and Brazil will be decided on land, and not by sea, I don't see the benefit.
But it's obvious you'll be pursuing your timeline regardless, so good luck.
So even with your numbers, the cost of a PB is almost double that of a standard cruiser. That is very substantial. So for the same money, you could buy a heavy cruiser and 1 light cruiser, or almost have enough to buy two heavy cruisers.
US Northamptons built under the Treaty were only $12 million. Each had 9 eight inch guns. Compare to the Exter which only had 6 eight inch guns when it fought Graf Spee (see, David?
I am not seeing any decisive benefit for the PB. It could go either way. On the other hand, having that extra ship gives the opposing navy more flexibility and gives them some insurance that they'll have at least one ship left over if the navy fights a PB.
Since any war between Argentina and Brazil will be decided on land, and not by sea, I don't see the benefit.
But it's obvious you'll be pursuing your timeline regardless, so good luck.
Not that obvious, I mostly enjoy dialogue over monologue, so when nobody else shares my interests I exit stage left. I think that in an action btw a well designed 15000t and a first generation non cheating Treaty cruiser, the almost complete lack of protection on the CA, vs the decent, against 8'', protection of the PB, would give the PB an edge.
The Exeter had two CL with her. Even then it took serious demage being hit by four 11'' shell in 13 minutes and had to break of the action. When she came back because the CLs were in trouble she took two more hits and had to break the action and run for the Falklands, with fires on board, most weapons out of action, a 7 degrees list no radio, no fire control, etc. The Ajax was hit by five 11'' shell when it closed on the Spee to help the Exeter, and lost two turrets and had to break when the Achiles reported that it was seriously demaged and nearly out of ammo.
The Graf Spee had been hit by 2 8'' shells and 18 6'' shell. She sustained 36 dead, 60 wounded and was demaged in a way that made a rapid dash home difficult, but didn't compromise it's fighting power.
If the RN ships had been in a situation were they couldn't run (covering a convoy, for example) they would have been all sunk. If the PB hab been near a friendly port, it would have gone home to celebrate. As it was, thinking it was being blocked by the Renown, Ark Royal, Cumberland, and Shropshire, Captain Langsdorff chose to sacrifice his ship and save his crew.
Now the Argentian cruisers were lightly protected 6800t ships with 6 7.5'' guns each. I'd say against a PB in a "till the end" fight they would be in big trouble...
A 30000t BB would be slightly inferior to the 35000t ships of the signatories, and one capital ship per country would not cause alarm, while making the ABC countries, and others, fell a little less thrown out of a party they weren't even invited too. It would allow the signatories to maintain large ship building experience and jobs with other people's money, and would also be a suitable way to allow the countries who had ordered ships before WW1 and never got them (the Rio de Janeiro and Richuelo for Brasil and the Almirante Cochrane for Chile) to buy something new. Greece had also been deprived of Salamis, and selling ships to the NL for use in the Pacific and Sweeden to monitor the Soviets would be a nice way of getting a job done while making a profit.
The financial and political advantages might outweighs the limited risks.
3 6" CL's are all going to be faster (by 5 - 8 knots) than your PB. The likelyhood of at least one of them getting into a position to torpedo the PB seems pretty high.
It'd be interesting to wargame out that is for sure.
It'd be interesting to wargame out that is for sure.
Three RN cruisers tried, none did. The first to get within torpedo range would have been under a hail of fire. Even if they come from both sides, the PB can divide its fire. Torpedo range in a clear day is within the range at wich the PB guns would be scoring multiple hits.
I concur, but not only because it would violate the "spirit" of the Treaty so much but because it would give certain powers inherent advantages. Britain, France, the United States, and even Italy could point to a number of lesser regional powers that would be natural proxy candidates for their ships. Spain, Greece, Turkey, Argentina, Brazil, Yugoslavia, Poland etc. come to mind. Who in Asia except possibly China would be a natural proxy for Japan? Japan would quite rightly object
But could Japan force a rewrite? It would probably argue in favor of a few extra tons, but of those ships only a Dutch one would be threat, and would be seen as an unlikely to be built inferior ship.
Daytime yes, twilight and night, not necessarily so. None of them are going to have radar right?
Flubber
Banned
Which, of course, is why the WNT has explicit language in specific sections dedicated to such preventing such occurances from happening. The framers of the WNT weren't going to let a signatory power cheat it's assigned tonnage totals by constructing or subsidizing the construction of warships for minor powers.
The entire text of the WNT can easily be found online. it would be helpful if some in this thread would actually read that text before suggesting various "end runs" around the treaty.
Pocket battleships, as opposed to caostal defense ships, are not going to purchased by minor powers for two important reasons. First, the design and thinking behind the design sucks and, second, the only powers who can build such ships are prevented by the WNT from doing so.
Radar less cruisers finding one another in the south Atlantic at night is not a good a good strategy for the Argentine navy. You could plot a scenario were the CL shadow the PB all day and wait for twilight to close in. That would be forcing things a bit and only work on a scenario were no destroyers are involved on each side.
Destroyers are indeed a complication, but the 5 - 8 knot advantage the CL's have mean that they can dictate the distance the PB is followed at and when it is engaged.
I have read the treaty. Like you've said, it's online and was extensively quoted in this site regarding German Carriers and other stuff. I also live in a Union were all countries signed a treaty that bound them to keep national deficit under 3% of their PIB and then went on shooping spree. Given a straight faced plausible excuse, nobody would break treaty because of two Brazilian ships. But since people might find that implausible, I suggested a POD were the treaty would be slightly different. This revised treaty you will not find online, because it's made up. It's the POD